Why can't everyone see what is plainly obvious here: the major inputs to our atmospheric temperatures, the inputs that MATTER, the inputs that can even hope to make a BLIP on the charts are: the variability in solar energy output, the volcanoes, the rotting vegetation, and water vapor.
I'm afraid you've bought in to a common lie. Human activity releases far, far more carbon dioxide than the volcanoes do.
When the leaves rot they give off CO2 and methane. Methane is far worse as a green house gas than CO2 - by a factor of over 20.
True, but CH4 + 3O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O, which won't take long in an oxygen-rich atmosphere, and just gives us carbon dioxide back; the same carbon dioxide that was absorbed when the leaves grew in the springtime. Meanwhile the tree on the ground has grown over the course of the year, and locked up a bit more carbon in the form of wood.
and to rub it in a bit more, the USA spends a higher percentage of it's GDP than any other country (something like 15% I believe), and the UK spends just 6% of it's GDP on healthcare.
You've got to be kidding. They spend MORE than we do? I'd got the idea that they put up with having no health service because it meant they could spend more money on, er... I think the term they use is 'defending freedom'. I'd never imagined they spent anything like as much. I mean, the common wisdom in the UK is that the NHS is a colossal money pit. The American system is even more expensive?
Jesus. So, 15% GDP in the US, versus 6% in the UK... and adjust for the higher per capita wealth of the US... that's just horrible. Where the hell is all the money going?
I suppose in the US you have judges with clue. In the UK it's fuddy duddy old men in wigs who go "What is this 'internet'?"
You mean judges who know meaningless jargon when they hear it, and want all terms of reference used in their courtroom to be clearly defined.
What, exactly, legally speaking, is a 'website'? Where does one 'website' end and another begin? How does a 'site' differ from a 'page', if at all? Is a 'forum' part of a 'website', or only attached to it? Is there, as the media often says, a 'file sharing website' called 'BitTorrent' on which pirates trade music? What exactly is this 'Web' thing anyway, and how is it distinct from the 'Internet', if at all?
A lot of terms bandied about in common parlance regarding Internet services are very vague, and I'm glad to hear of judges demanding that they be defined clearly and unambiguously when in court.
I increasingly find that lots of software is linux only or works better in linux.
I think it's a cultural thing.
Whenever I have something reasonably complex in mind to do in Windows (let us say... some kind of manipulation of PDF files), and I think 'Somebody must surely have programmed this already - I'll check online!' - I find pages upon pages of applications promising to do just as I wish, but they're all crippleware, non-functional unless I pay somebody money for them. Or they're riddled with advertising, or worse. Because every Windows programmer who has faced this problem has found a solution and immediately had fantasies of making a million selling software on the internet.
Whereas when the same notion strikes in Linux, the results are all free software, and far more functional than the Windows shareware shite, because some hacker in the past has faced the same problem as me, and has published his solution to the community.
Windows programmers hoard their creations and try to make money from them, and no one programmer can really benefit much from the work of any other. Linux hackers release their creations freely, and every hacker can improve and build upon the work of any other. Small wonder then that in order to get any decent software on Windows, one must either pay a licence fee to a corporation and sell one's soul to an EULA, or hope to hell that some software from the Unix world has been ported across.
Well, the Sermon on the Mount was written down by some guys who were stood a bit too far back and who couldn't quite hear. What Jesus actually said was 'Blessed are the cheesemakers' - although that's obviously not to be taken literally; it refers to all manufacturers of dairy products.
If, as I speculated above, these machines are Eee PCs, then they probably stay running Linux for all their operational life. The target market for such machines wouldn't know how to reinstall an OS. Wiping a disk and installing Windows, then locating drivers for all the hardware, then setting up firewalls and antivirus... well, that's fine for the hobbyist, but the average user is just going to stick with what's on the system as it arrived. Windows needs to become a lot easier for the end user to configure and install if it's going to become a viable competitor on the mainstream ultraportable.
People behind unusually restrictive filters. People in remote areas with bad or intermittent connections. People working on mobile devices with full POP connectivity but limited or no web browser. If you're at a polar research station relying for your email connection on a satellite that's only visible for half an hour a day, you won't appreciate being told to visit some damn website to get somebody to stop mailing you.
In general, you can't safely assume that someone with access to one internet protocol also has access to any other.
However, what you have described is not spam, but rather a person too lazy to follow the unsubscribe procedures.
Not everybody who has email also has web access. Putting the unsubscribe facility on an entirely separate system is unacceptable. Requiring people to jump through hoops to unsubscribe is typical spammer behaviour.
Terminology quibble: 'confirmed opt-in' is preferred. 'Double' implies that a subscriber has to opt in twice, and also implies that there exists such a thing as 'single opt-in'.
Analogy: when you have to enter a user name AND a password as well, do you call it double log-in? Or do you consider it only a single log-in, and accept the necessity to prove that you actually are who you say you are as a basic security requirement? Well, it's the same with opt-in to mailing lists. An opt-in without a confirmation step is no opt-in at all.
Accusations of being a SPAMmer with real negative economic consequences can easily be construed as libel, as SPAM has a legal definition.
Yes, it does: SPAM is a tinned luncheon meat made by Hormel, who are very protective of their trademark on SPAM. Spam, on the other hand, can also refer to unsolicited bulk email.
Quite a lot of rockets blew up in the early years of NASA, even rockets carrying humans
Only one NASA rocket carrying humans ever blew up, and that was in 1986, killing seven. They lost three to a fire on the pad in 1967, and in 2003 seven more were lost when their vehicle broke apart on re-entry.
The Soviets have had rockets explode on the pad killing many ground crew, but they've only ever lost four cosmonauts - IIRC, all to re-entry problems.
Space isn't quite a vacuum. There is a very sparse gas, through which the solar wind blows; doesn't really matter for interplanetary navigation as it's not really under pressure, so you don't need much force to break through.
Unfortunately she wasn't authorised to upload them. All this means is that in this particular transaction the RIAA can't be sued for their part.
Is that so? Surely if an authorised representative of the record company comes to me and says 'Hey, could I take a copy of your 'Sgt Pepper' CD?', then I'm doing nothing wrong in allowing him to do so. He's a record company rep, after all. It's their copyright, they're allowed to make all the copies they want, and I'm happy enough to help them do so by letting them copy from my CD if that's what they want to do. And the same reasoning goes for music on my hard disk.
What they need to do is prove that she let others copy from her computer, people not authorised by the record company. Preferably by providing the names of the unauthorised people she uploaded to, and the dates and times at which she did it.
I hadn't heard that conscription had been reintroduced. To the best of my knowledge every single American soldier spraying depleted uranium poison across the Middle East volunteered to do it. Blame the government by all means, but the government would find it much more difficult to do such things if they didn't have access to a plentiful supply of hired killers perfectly willing to do their dirty work for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, worse yet, try playing football for Manchester United...
[citation needed]
Oh, and also [apostrophe needed].
I'm afraid you've bought in to a common lie. Human activity releases far, far more carbon dioxide than the volcanoes do.
True, but CH4 + 3O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O, which won't take long in an oxygen-rich atmosphere, and just gives us carbon dioxide back; the same carbon dioxide that was absorbed when the leaves grew in the springtime. Meanwhile the tree on the ground has grown over the course of the year, and locked up a bit more carbon in the form of wood.
You've got to be kidding. They spend MORE than we do? I'd got the idea that they put up with having no health service because it meant they could spend more money on, er... I think the term they use is 'defending freedom'. I'd never imagined they spent anything like as much. I mean, the common wisdom in the UK is that the NHS is a colossal money pit. The American system is even more expensive?
Jesus. So, 15% GDP in the US, versus 6% in the UK... and adjust for the higher per capita wealth of the US... that's just horrible. Where the hell is all the money going?
You mean judges who know meaningless jargon when they hear it, and want all terms of reference used in their courtroom to be clearly defined.
What, exactly, legally speaking, is a 'website'? Where does one 'website' end and another begin? How does a 'site' differ from a 'page', if at all? Is a 'forum' part of a 'website', or only attached to it? Is there, as the media often says, a 'file sharing website' called 'BitTorrent' on which pirates trade music? What exactly is this 'Web' thing anyway, and how is it distinct from the 'Internet', if at all?
A lot of terms bandied about in common parlance regarding Internet services are very vague, and I'm glad to hear of judges demanding that they be defined clearly and unambiguously when in court.
I think it's a cultural thing.
Whenever I have something reasonably complex in mind to do in Windows (let us say... some kind of manipulation of PDF files), and I think 'Somebody must surely have programmed this already - I'll check online!' - I find pages upon pages of applications promising to do just as I wish, but they're all crippleware, non-functional unless I pay somebody money for them. Or they're riddled with advertising, or worse. Because every Windows programmer who has faced this problem has found a solution and immediately had fantasies of making a million selling software on the internet.
Whereas when the same notion strikes in Linux, the results are all free software, and far more functional than the Windows shareware shite, because some hacker in the past has faced the same problem as me, and has published his solution to the community.
Windows programmers hoard their creations and try to make money from them, and no one programmer can really benefit much from the work of any other. Linux hackers release their creations freely, and every hacker can improve and build upon the work of any other. Small wonder then that in order to get any decent software on Windows, one must either pay a licence fee to a corporation and sell one's soul to an EULA, or hope to hell that some software from the Unix world has been ported across.
Well, the Sermon on the Mount was written down by some guys who were stood a bit too far back and who couldn't quite hear. What Jesus actually said was 'Blessed are the cheesemakers' - although that's obviously not to be taken literally; it refers to all manufacturers of dairy products.
If, as I speculated above, these machines are Eee PCs, then they probably stay running Linux for all their operational life. The target market for such machines wouldn't know how to reinstall an OS. Wiping a disk and installing Windows, then locating drivers for all the hardware, then setting up firewalls and antivirus... well, that's fine for the hobbyist, but the average user is just going to stick with what's on the system as it arrived. Windows needs to become a lot easier for the end user to configure and install if it's going to become a viable competitor on the mainstream ultraportable.
On which note, Amazon, get a bloody move on sending me my Linux 901. It was supposed to be out last month, now you say August 11th?
I mean, presumably there's more than one Knight Templar. Shouldn't it be 'Knights Templar sue the Pope'? Unless there's only one of them left...
What, you've never been added to a mailing list you didn't ask for, whether by mistake or by malice? Wow. You must be new.
So, er... Hi. Welcome to the Internet!
People behind unusually restrictive filters. People in remote areas with bad or intermittent connections. People working on mobile devices with full POP connectivity but limited or no web browser. If you're at a polar research station relying for your email connection on a satellite that's only visible for half an hour a day, you won't appreciate being told to visit some damn website to get somebody to stop mailing you.
In general, you can't safely assume that someone with access to one internet protocol also has access to any other.
Not everybody who has email also has web access. Putting the unsubscribe facility on an entirely separate system is unacceptable. Requiring people to jump through hoops to unsubscribe is typical spammer behaviour.
Terminology quibble: 'confirmed opt-in' is preferred. 'Double' implies that a subscriber has to opt in twice, and also implies that there exists such a thing as 'single opt-in'.
Analogy: when you have to enter a user name AND a password as well, do you call it double log-in? Or do you consider it only a single log-in, and accept the necessity to prove that you actually are who you say you are as a basic security requirement? Well, it's the same with opt-in to mailing lists. An opt-in without a confirmation step is no opt-in at all.
How can they stop you - is this some nightmarish corollary of the DMCA I'm not aware of? Buy the shirt, then put whatever letters you like on it.
Yes, it does: SPAM is a tinned luncheon meat made by Hormel, who are very protective of their trademark on SPAM. Spam, on the other hand, can also refer to unsolicited bulk email.
Only one NASA rocket carrying humans ever blew up, and that was in 1986, killing seven. They lost three to a fire on the pad in 1967, and in 2003 seven more were lost when their vehicle broke apart on re-entry.
The Soviets have had rockets explode on the pad killing many ground crew, but they've only ever lost four cosmonauts - IIRC, all to re-entry problems.
He tried, but all he got was some background noise. So he ended up having to watch the stars on videos, which took ages.
Space isn't quite a vacuum. There is a very sparse gas, through which the solar wind blows; doesn't really matter for interplanetary navigation as it's not really under pressure, so you don't need much force to break through.
However, it appears that travelling at the speed of light would make a supersonic man out of you.
Is that so? Surely if an authorised representative of the record company comes to me and says 'Hey, could I take a copy of your 'Sgt Pepper' CD?', then I'm doing nothing wrong in allowing him to do so. He's a record company rep, after all. It's their copyright, they're allowed to make all the copies they want, and I'm happy enough to help them do so by letting them copy from my CD if that's what they want to do. And the same reasoning goes for music on my hard disk.
What they need to do is prove that she let others copy from her computer, people not authorised by the record company. Preferably by providing the names of the unauthorised people she uploaded to, and the dates and times at which she did it.
'Only following orders', eh? Heard that somewhere before. Was bullshit then, too.
I hadn't heard that conscription had been reintroduced. To the best of my knowledge every single American soldier spraying depleted uranium poison across the Middle East volunteered to do it. Blame the government by all means, but the government would find it much more difficult to do such things if they didn't have access to a plentiful supply of hired killers perfectly willing to do their dirty work for them.
Because Disraeli did such a poor job as Prime Minister.